Copy image? Nope, here’s the link instead.
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
276 points (78.8% liked)
memes
22049 readers
2755 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why are we sending someone to "Extra Hell" for making an improved image format that has better compression and is an overall improvement over all 3 of the existing formats it replaces (jpeg, png, gif)?
Shouldn't this apply to ~~everyone~~ the companies who refused to adopt it, thus breaking every normal image workflow? (Same thing can be said about JXL)
Edit: fix vague wording
Because they have a poor user experience with an OS and applications that have chosen not to support it properly, and blame the image format for this
I have comments about your first question, but they're mostly stupid on my end. I think the problem for most is related to your 2nd question. Google is doing it's google thing where they do a lot to force adoption with a goal of doing nothing to support it. Combine with a general distrust of Google.
I'm realizing my wording might be vague, by "everyone" I meant the big tech companies that didn't implement it, like Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe. AFAIK most of the open source apps actually implemented support pretty quickly, and obviously it wouldn't be the end users' fault because they can't change what formats are supported
I'd say the knowledge about webp's benefits is not mainstream at all, I learned about it last week from a random YouTube video. So when people download a file that isn't working as expected they don't know who to be mad at so they make memes like this.
Obviously be mad at whoever responded to a request without accept webp in it with a webp or didn't provide an alternative. Nothing wrong with supporting webp with a fallback
Because it's Google trying to control not just everything ELSE about the internet, as if that wasn't enough, but even what image formats we use.
If PNG and JPEG aren't good enough, which they often are, by the way, JPEG XL is right there.
-- Frost
It's not an improvement over PNG.
No one uses it and even if they did, you'd never know since there isn't a .webl or .webpl to differentiate lossless.
You know a PNG in lossless, you know a jpg is lossy. webp should just be assumed lossy 100% of the time.
Kind of a tangent, but while the png format uses lossless compression, you do not know that the .png you have in front of you is lossless from the filename; image softwares can and do support preprocessing an image with lossy algorithms to improve the file size.
This is sort of unlike flac for audio -- it is technically also possible, but hardly anyone would do it, since the only reason to use flac is for lossless compression.
I get the impression that .png is used alongside .jpg as a general image format, although i don't really know.
You also don't know if your .png file has an alpha channel or not -- might have been made without one.
Well.. fake flac uploads from artists are not that uncommon on streaming services..
How to determine if webp is lossless? Old format easy, jpg vs. png.
As an expert in image processing:
.png supports pretty extreme compression, while a jpeg can also be lossless. The extensions tell you nothing except which family of algorithms was used to encode/compress/store them.
Webp though, webp is only used for the internet. I mean, you could use it other places, I guess.
You're an "expert in image processing" but don't understand the fundamental difference between the .jpg and .png image formats or the encoding and compression algorithms underpinning them? I find that doubtful.
.png only compresses efficiently when used as intended, which is for screenshots or other images with large areas of solid colors, where each pixel is most likely the same color value as its neighbors. In this use case, it's much more efficient than .jpg. However, .jpg is much more efficient than .png when it's used as it's intended; encoding images of the real world, like images taken with a digital camera, where each pixel has a slightly different color value than the ones next to it.
You can test this yourself by taking a picture with your phone's camera, then copying the image, converting the copy to the other file format, then comparing the file sizes. Next, repeat the process with a screenshot of a web page or a simple Paint drawing. You'll see that the camera image is smaller as a .jpg but the screenshot is smaller as a .png.
Nothing the other guy said contradicts this? Nor shows a lack of understanding this?
Yeah they didn't say anything about efficiency lol, where the hell did all that come from
Maybe the commenter got lost looking for a Wendy's
png also compresses better when you lower the color depth, the number of colors. And you forgot png has alpha which is a big deal IMO.
Is this a very niche copypasta that I'm unaware of?
Webp has shit application support. Even Google won't support it for half their workspace apps.
I having not encounters a single program that couldn't handle webp. Window, Linux and android. All browsers, all image viewers and editing software I use just works™ with it
Photoshop didn't for a surprisingly long time.
I envy you, not having to deal with enterprise and Legal software on a day to day basis.
Because the reason webp/webm is trash is that it uses proprietary codecs, which some software companies don't want to include support for. It's google's attempt to control every format used on the web.
We already have JXL, which is better than webp at everything it does, it's not proprietary, and the main reason it's still not widely supported is because google spent years trying to bury it and intentionally not offering support for it and prioritizing its own webp.
WebP isn't proprietary. It's based on the VP9 video codec, which is completely open source and royalty free, and currently maintained by the same people who made AV1.